Cover Procedural or Not - Video Evidence

[RickB]

If the written procedure did not say the doorway couldn't be crossed before doing "A", then there should be no penalty for crossing the doorway. That said, he should have been dinged on any or all of the first three targets for not using cover, when cover (car) was available. He did all right as he approached the doorway and engaged the next target, but then after activating the mover, he made no attempt to get behind cover again before engaging. The activated swinger was, at that point a threat, visible (sort of) AND closer than the mover in the background, so the swinger should have been engaged before the mover. It was sort of an unmanageable situation. Maybe stepping on the activator, putting two through the NT, then getting the mover, then crossing the doorway would be the way to do it, but maybe not without a FTDR.

[COF]

Looked like a fun stage to shoot but with these issues it should have been thrown out.

1. Cover should have been required for engaging the first three targets - either taking a knee at the back of the car or backing up to use the roof for cover - I know it's concealment, not real cover but for the game we can call it cover.

2. Seems like regardless of which side you went to, you exposed yourself to a threat target moving to the wall - should have engaged the target from further back using the wall as cover

3. Moving from one side of the doorway to the other exposed you to either the target on the left or target on the right - PE

4. Seems like having the activator in the middle was to allow folks to activate from either side - regardless, poor design

5. Double swinger without any real difference in speed - Bad stage design! Absolutely nothing wrong with a double swinger but set them at different speeds. Not a doable shot unless you're willing to wound the hostage.

Jerry

[HHjr]

I shot this stage squaded with poster eel ...... I tanked it along with most everyone else. eel and I have been playing this game for a long time, and are MA/EX level shooters. The approval and inclusion of this stage for a championship match was extremely dissapointing and blemmished an otherwise excellent realistic set of shooting chalenges.

Harold Hovey

[Duane Thomas]

Looking over the stage, it doesn't look to me like a bad stage. Anyone shooting this stage could have easily used cover at the car, and likewise easily stayed at the left corner of the doorway to engage the leftmost targets. The fact that a number of people didn't do that is not the fault of the stage, the stage designer, or the SOs, it falls on the shooters who chose to shoot the stage that way.

[rupie]

It seems if you want to script each and every movement it would be easier to put foot prints where you want them to walk, put a sign that says duck down, slice pie, use cover, here with an arrow. the only issue is when you do get in a real gun fight who is going to be directing your movements. How in the world are you going to have to make decisions if they are always made for you. I know, i know its a game! Would I jump across a open doorway in a gun fight! absolutely if I thought it was safer than sticking my head through it to reach the back left corner.

[PHolsted]

Looking over the stage, it doesn't look to me like a bad stage. Anyone shooting this stage could have easily used cover at the car, and likewise easily stayed at the left corner of the doorway to engage the leftmost targets. The fact that a number of people didn't do that is not the fault of the stage, the stage designer, or the SOs, it falls on the shooters who chose to shoot the stage that way.

I have to respectfully disagree and agree with you here.

The way this stage was ran and the placement of some of the props made this a bad stage, with that being said this set up an atmosphere that made it it too easy for shooters to one get a procedural, two to have a shooter be awarded unfair points for a HNT and lastly giving some shooters an easy target while others had to wait an unfair time for a shot on target.

How can the shooter move up to cover on the left side of the door from the car and not expose himself? From the video the shooter waits till he gets up next to the wall to shoot the target in the right side of the store. I can hardly see a way he could have gotten in to that position with out exposing him self to that target. But yet he got no PE.

If the shooter would have moved from the car to the right side of door he would have surly exposed himself to the target to the left inside of the store and again they were not given a PE for this.

But now because he crosses the door and exposes him self to a target he get a procedural?

This could have been a very good CoF it just needed some minor changes to keep from having inconsistency's.

[HHjr]

I agree with PHolsted that the important points are being missed about this stage...

The beginning of the stage (first three targets) is not a issue at all.

At the wall If the person does not have their gun up and their eyes on their sights when they tripped that pressure plate and missed that flash target that too is a non gripe there for me (I got my two hits on that). A quote directed to me during a class a few years ago from Mr John Farnum on exposing ones extremities to a known threat ... "If I can see your Fxxxing foot I am going to shoot your Fxxxing foot!"

The entire gripe in my opinion on this stage is that hidden swinger. I wish I had the skills to hit the sliver of a head I had at speed... there were some incredible times posted with minimal points down ...if they had the same sliver I had then I bow down to them and say nicely done.

You could not move up to that opening without exposing yourself to either outer target.

Was this course of fire "reasonably used in real life" as specified in the IDPA rule book ? All but that one target plays out reasonably well to me. You just would not reasonably take that shot on the swinger, from That position in real life. You would quarter to the side or charge and muzzle contact the threat.... no doubt that hostage is getting cut/shot/injured by the hostage taker .... we all can agree that we never want to find our loved ones in that position.

Rupie - I agree in general IDPA is too scripted on every target angagement location .... I come from an late 80's and on IPSC background where there often is three ways to shoot any stage ..... but the targets always reveal the same.

Harold H

Edited September 4, 2009 by HHjr

[CRDB]

Looking at that video, it looks like the cover call was for the target swinging with the no shoot, if I can't see it to shoot it, it's not there. I would have shot through the no shoot and stayed on the left side of the door and not burn the time that shooter did.

DB

PS on post #6 answers the question, notes that you may bypass the swinging target to engage target on left side, if you can bypass you would be open to the target not engaged. So no PEN.

Edited September 4, 2009 by CRDB

[shooterready]

I scored the match. Score sheets never seemed to stop coming. We had a lot of shooters.

OK, let me start by saying, this stage did not turn out the way the MD intended. The activator was supposed to be placed closer to the vehicles as you were running toward the store. This way the only target you would be exposed to while approaching the store was the slide out, disappearing target. At that point you would pick a side and finish engaging targets in priority. The course description allowed you to pick either side. The problem was that the activator cables became a trip hazard when set as intended. So, the activator was moved for SAFETY reasons.

My first question is, if the shooter felt he did not deserve a PE did the MD get called for a final decision? If not, tough luck. Every shooter has the ability to question all infractions imparted on them. If you do not feel you been treated fairly then call for a decision from the MD, that's what they get paid for, ahhh... volunteer for.

My call, if I were the MD, would be not to call the procedural. The shooter gained no advantage by switching sides. Also, because the COF did not specifically say that you could not switch sides during engagement. PE are imposed when the shooter gaines an unintended, perceived, advantage. And yes, I also have issues with the preceived part, but that's another discussion.

As for not shooting from cover of the vehicles the COF did not require it. If you felt you needed to take cover, then by all means do so.

What if your loved ones were in the vehicle, would you want the bad guys shooting at the car or you? Anyway, not really relevant. Just trying to make a point. The COF description sets up the way a stage is intended to be shot. If the COF says you can engage targets in any order without using cover then that is what we do. It has nothing to do with what is TACTICALLY correct. This game has nothing to do with TACTICAL correctness. It is a game, it has rules, sometimes not as concrete as we would all like. As long as each shooter is given the same opportunities to shoot the stage, it is all good.

For what it is worth, I didn't like the stage after if was changed. However, I don't feel it was unfair. The double swinger target took off the same way every time and was weighted the same for every shooter. Don't fault me for being able to shoot difficult targets

My congratulations to the MD, SO's and staff that made this match one to remember. It was FUN!

[shooterready]

I shot this stage squaded with poster eel ...... I tanked it along with most everyone else. eel and I have been playing this game for a long time, and are MA/EX level shooters. The approval and inclusion of this stage for a championship match was extremely dissapointing and blemmished an otherwise excellent realistic set of shooting chalenges.

Harold Hovey

Harold,

I'm assuming you didn't shoot last year's MI State Match, with the dreaded wall. More like a carnival shoot than an IDPA scenario. Anyway, I disagree with the extremely dissapointing part. That is a little harsh isn't it?

Was it disappointing because you shot it poorly? Why is that the fault of the stage? Was it unsafe? Was it unfair? I for one, don't think so. But, this is why we debate.

Dick

[lugnut]

Dick- I have no skin is this game as I didn't shoot it, my interest is solely on education. In IDPA there are always exceptions to the rules.. safety is paramount and having someone trip over a wire is something that you were wise to fix. Sometimes stages just don't work out for various reasons as it stinks for the shooter(s) and the volunteers like yourself.

However- if cover is available you need to shoot from cover. The car was available. Unless explicitly stated otherwise, shooters should have been required to shoot from behind the car. Sometimes when it's not clear what cover is and how it should be used- it should be spelled out.

I used to leave these things to the shooters to figure out before but recently I've decided to be as clear as possible when doing the walk thrus. Why? Because IDPA rules are interpreted so differently from person to person AND I don't want to beat someone, or have someone beat me because one of us got a silly PE!

I truly find designing IDPA stages VERY challenging for all the reasons above... what can appear to be simple is often not!

Also- I appreciate the efforts put into scoring a match like this.. it's a boat load of work!!

Someone on this thread said it very clearly- the rules are in the rule book- if they are not clear (or in the rule book!) then don't make up things the way you think they "should" be. Otherwise explain things clearly in the walk thru.

Edited September 5, 2009 by lugnut

[shooterready]

lugnut,

You are correct about the use of cover. However, the target placement presented an issue for safely engaging targets from the car hood. Possible damage to the vehicle's window and bouncing rounds off the car. You are absolutely right, in hind sight, that was a issue with this stage's design.

But, as we all know, hind sight is 20/20. Therefore, the right call was to allow shooters to engage from the car without cover. Many times all the stages cannot be debugged completely before the match takes off. And trust me, this was not for a lack of trying. Changes are made to the best of our abilities and we learn from our mistakes.

I unfortunately live quite far from the range and could not help debug some of these with the core group. Not saying, I would have made different decisions, just wasn't able to help in that regard.

I believe safety trumps all. So that was the call.

Thanks for the input.

[HHjr]

I should of admitted Shooterready that I indeed did tank that target rather then saying the entire stage. I shot the rest of that stage very well. .... That one swinging target is the only thing I can fault (yes dissapointed) in a very nice match.

I was ill and literally puked out of last years monsoon match. I have shot 5 of the ten MI State matches.

The stage was not unsafe ... well, extremely unsafe for the swinging hostage.

Waiting 8 secongs just to get 2 mikes on that target added a ton of time. Maybe I should of got my two hits in the -0 thru the NT and made it look as I bobbed the muzzle back and forth a bit to convince the SO I was properly engaging the threat.....That was not the intent of the stage designer I am sure but it would of shaved a ton of time off.

Now if I had been shooting IPSC Open division for the last 20 years maybe I would of been up to that shooting challenge. I could not pull the trigger on the sliver of a bobing head .... my own fault and decision. Yes, that one target kicked my ass. Maybe I was just unlucky ...

I match directed IPSC for nearly 10 years ... currently I co-direct IDPA with shooter eel...That one sliver of a bobing headshot target was simply rediculous, and not in the Spirit of IDPA. Yes, disappointed. I understand the amount of work that goes in to IPSC and IDPA and I appreciate all the clubs coming together to put on this fine match. Overall It was very well done. Thank You to all those that worked for us.

Even if I could routinely pull that shot off I would Not include that exact swinging target in one of my stages. If you can look down the stats after a match and can see different levels of shooters dinged like crazy with penalties then you have to ask yourself was that a proper shooting challenge even if it is completely safe.

Does not the shear number of replies this thread has received cast a huge shadow of doubt on this stage ??

Harold Hovey

[Ben Stoeger]

The shooter can holster his gun, bend down, and tie his shoes out in the open if he so chooses. That action does not earn a penalty for not being behind cover. Cover penalties are only awarded when a shot is fired or the shooter initiates or completes a reload.

From page 43 of the rulebook:

More than 50% of the shooter’s upper torso must be behind cover

while engaging threat targets and/or reloading.

Nowhere in there does it say anything about the shooter getting a penalty when they expose themselves during any action but reloading or shooting.

[Chills1994]

I thought the stage looked fine until the bad guy target and the no shoot were activated, I guess simultaneously, by the foot activator pad.

I think I would have just dumped two into the back berm somewhat close or near the two synched up movers, continued slicing the pie and engaged and hit what I am guessing was a stationary paper target. Then I would have unloaded and showed clear and taken the -5 miss and another -5 miss (but not an FTN because it was a disappearing target), initialed the scoresheet and moved onto the next stage.

So...hmnnn... yeah... I would have "gamed" it.

After seeing the video, my question is how did most of the locals and/or SO's shoot it?

[Duane Thomas]

That approach sounds like an FTDR to me.

[Chills1994]

A'yup, that is exactly what it is skirting.... but unless you're the SO and also can read minds how do you know what my intent was when I lobbed two rounds at a moving, swinging target some 10 yards or so away.

Again, proper course design would...or rather should alleviate such a crappy target array and its potential for people to skirt an FTDR infranction in the first place.

Edited September 5, 2009 by Chills1994

[Chills1994]

FWIW, I just browsed through all 82 pages of the IDPA rulebook and did a search in the .pdf version of the rulebook for "expose", and NO where did I see it spelled out how much a bad guy target could be coated with black paint (aka "hard cover") or a non-threat good guy/hostage target.

Did I miss it?

Or am I correct in believing that the IDPA rulebook doesn't elaborate by explicitly stating how much percentage of the down zero areas have to be left exposed?

I know I have seen terrorist targets where the whole torso is wrapped in "body armor" which forces the IDPA competitors to do strictly head shots. That seems okay, in my book.

This synched up non-threat in front of the bad guy target is NOT okay, in my book.

[sirveyr]

That approach sounds like an FTDR to me.

I'll use the argument that I've read on all of the "forums" dozens of times. Typically, a FTDR penalty can be traced back to poor course design. In IDPA, when one of the ways to win the stage is to not shoot a target, that is poor stage design. The bottom line is that the overall match was okay, but this stage was very inconsistent and therefore, poorly designed.

<veering slightly off course>

I enjoyed shooting the match, but I felt that it was very "choreographed". There was an unusual amount of "reload here and only here", "this position is considered cover to engage targets from, but it is not cover for reloading", "you were moving, but not moving enough", etc.

<still slightly off course>

I've said it before in my earlier posts, thanks to the match staff and the COF designers. I know it's not easy to run a match of this magnitude and it is very easy to be critical of things while looking back. When you have 12 good stages, they all can't be awesome. We, the shooters, understand that somethings look great on paper, but on dirt and grass...not so much. I've been there...

[wsimpso1]

I understand that the match actually went off pretty well. Congratulations on that! Big matches are huge tasks for a lot of people who all volunteer to make them happen. If a bunch of things happened well, and only a few things were worthy of criticism, you did pretty well. It was never my intention to piss off the folks who worked hard to make it go as well as it did.

Thread drift took this thread away from the intended topic of SO's giving unearned penalties. That being said, that the swinger on the gas station did not end up presenting the same challenge to all shooters. S%^& happens. The damage would have been avoided by throwing out that stage.

As to the questions about why "Casey" did not protest the PE and get the MD involved? Geez, we should have a system that routinely abuses newbies for not knowing the rulebook thoroughly or for not being good match lawyers? He is a grown-up and I don't want to defend him so much as I want all of us to do better in the future. The shooter in question only got interested and classified in the last few weeks. In order to recognize that PE was being wrongly assigned, you have to be familiar enough with the game and the rules to understand what had happened, and then be able form a successful rulebook framed challenge to the PE with the MD. Instead he took his punishment quietly but confusedly and moved on. Yep, a newbie got abused, the SO did not get corrected, and our game took another hit it did not need to take...

Billski

Edited September 6, 2009 by wsimpso1

[Chills1994]

in my opinion...., if you ignore the squirrely foot pad and the squirrely swingers, the procedural penalty was correctly applied. in my opinion... about the only CoF or stage layout that should have you risking your "life" by leaving cover and to cross into the open is to pick up a simulated child or baby, when there are bad guy targets still visible and left un-engaged.

Back when I SO'ed the 2007 IDPA Nat's, our CSO on the stage always made it a point to say, "If you cross here with an empty gun or without engaging all the targets first, you will get a procedural."

A little reminder like that written into the CoF description would have been nice. Trust me, he wasn't the first newbie to feel abused at a major match, and he won't be the last.

Edited September 6, 2009 by Chills1994

[shooterready]

Bill,

Valid point. Noted.

[Codycoyote]

OK, I shot this match, and thought I would fill in some blanks. You've all seen what the COF description is. When we got to the walk through the SO's said you could stand and shoot the first three targets, you didn't need to seek cover. So that is a moot issue in this discussion. We were then told that we could run to either the left or right wall to engage the last 4 targets. At no point did they say you couldn't cross over. The So's said that you could move past the swinger to engage the far target if you wished, and come back to the swinger. As you see in my video. The SO's also stated that you had to step on the bear trap and bring your foot back behind the wall or you would get a cover procedural. Here is my Hat cam video so you can see where all the targets are.

When the OP or his friend got the procedural, if he disagreed, he should have called for the Match Director. Tom was on a 4 wheeler all day and was usually at the stage he was called to in a matter of minutes. The MD makes the final decision on everything. So what did the MD decide?

Edited September 6, 2009 by Codycoyote

[Ben Stoeger]

in my opinion...., if you ignore the squirrely foot pad and the squirrely swingers, the procedural penalty was correctly applied. in my opinion... about the only CoF or stage layout that should have you risking your "life" by leaving cover and to cross into the open is to pick up a simulated child or baby, when there are bad guy targets still visible and left un-engaged.

Where did you find this in the rulebook?

[Chills1994]

Ben, you saw the part where I wrote "in my opinion" in italics , right?

Notice I didn't type in something like "according to the rule book....?

The very first page of the .pdf version of the rulebook says this:

The International Defensive Pistol Association (IDPA) is the governing body of a shooting sport that simulates self-defense scenarios and real life encounters. .......

^^^ That right there, friends, is the very first sentence in the whole IDPA rulebook. If I wanted to be a mall ninja and pretend to be Mr. Super Tacti-billy then, in the real world in some SHTF situation there are about only two reasons for me to leave the protection of cover:

1. to go defend ...err. ... someone who is defenseless

2. or I am about to receive incoming fire from some other direction that the cover doesn't protect me from ...i.e. I am being outflanked.

and then on page 49 the rulebook says:

One of the great sins of many course designers is the practice of getting overly complex. Complexity is the enemy of good course design.

so, to me, in my opinion, that stage was overly complex.

then on page 48, Appendix 5-Course Design Rationale it says:

Of the many concepts set forth in the establishment of IDPA, none are more important than the requirement for Course Design. The one issue that is critical to the long term survival of this shooting discipline is that the problems shooters are asked to solve must reflect reality. The IDPA founders agreed to this when they set out to structure IDPA guidelines. IDPA should help promote sound basic self-defense tactics and test the skills that a person would need in a real self-defense encounter. Requirements like the use of cover, reloading behind cover, the limiting of the number of rounds required per string were all based upon that principle.

on page 50 it says:

In the real world, shooting near non-hostile targets is dangerous, criminal, and sets you up for serious liability issues. For a more difficult CoF use simulated hard cover to reduce the amount of the target that is exposed.....If any forms of cover or props that represent cover are used as part of the stage, then the contestant must use cover.

So.... ...hmmn.... Ben if you are wanting me to quote chapter and verse of the IDPA rulebook where it specifically says that leaving cover without engaging all the targets first equals a procedural penalty..A'yup, ya got me there Ben... I just did a search for "procedural" in the .pdf version and as near as I can tell, it doesn't say anywhere in that rulebook, explicity, that leaving cover with UNengaged targets equals a procedural.

Does the rulebook infer or imply that a shooter should be penalized for breaking cover?

Yeah, I think it does...see the above quoted sections as proof.

And that, my friends, is where we cross into the Bermuda Triangle gray area of things that is somewhere between the "spirit of IDPA" and "the letter of the law".

I think we could all make ourselves turn blue in the face trying to discuss "spirit of IDPA" by decyphering "intent" and making "inferences".

Anybody else here hoping that there is going to be a new revision to the rulebook soon?

Show of hands everybody!

It's been almost 5 years already.